From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaw et al. v. Classification Rev. Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 4, 1984
81 Pa. Commw. 331 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1984)

Opinion

Argued February 1, 1984

April 4, 1984.

Public employment — Job classification — Adjudication — Right of appeal.

1. No appeal lies from a determination of the Director of the Bureau of Personnel that a particular job classification is proper, as such a determination is not an adjudication or final order which has altered personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations but is merely a ministerial act labeling of the duties being performed by the employe. [332-3]

Argued February 1, 1984, before Judges ROGERS, PALLADINO and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 578 C.D. 1983, from the Order of the Classification Review Board, Bureau of Personnel, dated February 1, 1983.

Employees of the Department of Public Welfare requested reclassification. Hearing held before Classification Review Board. Employees deemed properly classified. Employees appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Classification Review Board filed motion to quash appeal. Held: Motion granted.

William G. Dade, Dade Walwyn, for petitioners.

Steven O. Newhouse, Assistant Counsel, with him John D. Raup, Chief Counsel, for respondent.


The Office of Budget and Administration (Respondent) seeks to quash the appeal of Hortence Shaw and Raymond Morgan (Petitioners). Petitioners are appealing a letter from the Director of the Bureau of Personnel (Director), which informed them that their job classification is proper. For the reasons set forth below we are granting the Respondent's Motion to Quash.

Petitioners are employed by the Department of Public Welfare and are each classified as Region Children and Youth Representative I. They requested a reclassification to Region Children and Youth Representative II. A hearing was held before the Classification Review Board (Board) which concluded that the Petitioners were properly classified as Representatives I. The Board forwarded its recommendation that the Petitioners' classifications were proper, to the Director who, in turn, sent a letter to the Petitioners advising them of the Board's recommendation.

In ruling on the Respondent's motion we note that the Petitioners' appeal must be from an "adjudication" if it is to be allowed. The adjudication, which has been legislatively defined, must affect "personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations." For a personal or property right to exist there must be an expectation or entitlement to the right. There is none in the case at bar, and indeed, none is alleged.

Administrative Agency Law, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, as amended, 2 Pa. C. S. § 702.

2 Pa. C. S. § 101.

Id.

Sergi v. School Dist., City of Pittsburgh, 28 Pa. Commw. 576, 580, 368 A.2d 1359, 1361 (1977); Amesbury v. Luz. County Inst. Dist., 27 Pa. Commw. 418, 421, 366 A.2d 631, 633 (1976).

Petitioners would have us believe that since adjudication is defined so as to include "duties" and "liabilities" the Director's letter notifying them of the Board's determination must be an adjudication. The Petitioners misinterpret the statutory language. Their duties and liabilities are not affected; they have not changed. The issue before the Board was that of classification — the appendage of the correct title to the Petitioners' duties. This labeling of responsibilities is ministerial in nature and thus fails to provide the requisite adjudication necessary for appellate review.

School Dist. of Lancaster v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, 73 Pa. Commw. 246, 458 A.2d 1024 (1983); see also Dingel v. State Emp. Ret. Sys., 62 Pa. Commw. 79, 435 A.2d 664 (1981).

Alternatively Petitioners contend that even if they do not have a right to appeal under the Administrative Agency Law they still have a right to appeal under the Judicial Code. The Judicial Code requires a final order for a right of appeal to exist. For the same reasons that the Director's letter did not represent an adjudication it also cannot be considered a final order.

Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, as amended, 42 Pa. C. S. §§ 101-20000.

Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. § 5105.

ORDER

AND NOW, April 4, 1984, the Respondent's Motion to Quash is hereby granted.


Summaries of

Shaw et al. v. Classification Rev. Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 4, 1984
81 Pa. Commw. 331 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1984)
Case details for

Shaw et al. v. Classification Rev. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:Hortence Shaw and Raymond Morgan, Petitioners v. A Classification Review…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 4, 1984

Citations

81 Pa. Commw. 331 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1984)
473 A.2d 726

Citing Cases

Orage v. Office of Admin

We conclude that the Board's letter of August 15, 1983, which refused Orage's reclassification request,…